The recruiting battle between NCAA collegiate hockey and the Canadian Hockey League ("CHL") is forcing teenage hockey players to make a career decision early in high school: whether to compete on an NCAA collegiate hockey team, or to compete at the major junior level in the CHL, which would take away their NCAA hockey eligibility. Because collegiate hockey coaches and major junior teams are seeking talent from the same age bracket, NCAA Legislative Counsel is considering a proposal that would allow college coaches earlier, more frequent contact with players in an effort to stay competitive with major junior teams' recruiting efforts. The CHL consists of three Canadian-based member leagues with players between the ages of 16-20: the Ontario Hockey League, the Western Hockey League, and the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. The CHL is considered the most direct path to a professional NHL contract, making it an attractive option for young players. According to Andrew Podnieks in an article for the New York Times, CHL players receive a minimum stipend per week from the league, and an education package that includes a percentage of tuition for each year the player active.

When the Canadian Hockey Association classifies Canadian and American ice hockey teams as major junior teams, the NCAA labels them professional teams. When a recruit chooses to compete in the CHL, he is no longer considered an amateur under NCAA rules, and his eligibility for collegiate ice hockey is lost.
A recruit’s collegiate ice hockey eligibility is put at risk even in a major junior team try-out situation. Since many CHL players have signed professional contracts with NHL teams, playing an exhibition game or scrimmage against another CHL team as part of a try-out for another CHL team results in a loss of eligibility because the recruit participated in competition against professional athletes.
The NCAA has strict rules that regulate recruiters' contact with players. Pursuant to the NCAA Division I manual, a Division I college hockey coach cannot contact a recruit until June 15 of the end of the recruit’s sophomore year in high school. The CHL, alternatively, does not have these recruiting limitations, so NCAA coaches have less time to convince players to join their college teams. By a player’s sophomore year, major junior league teams have already aggressively recruited notable players, so college hockey may not be a consideration for these players.
The battle to recruit young talent has placed pressure on the NCAA to allow coaches to relax Division I collegiate hockey recruiting rules. Proposal 2013-25-B intends to allow unlimited calls to a recruit at the discretion of the college starting January 1 of the individual’s sophomore year. The proposal would also allow for off-campus contact recruiting opportunities after June 15 of the end of individual’s sophomore year, which is a change from the current rule that only allows for off-campus contact during the recruit’s senior year. Under the proposed new rules, college coaches would also be allowed to give recruiting materials to players after January 1 of their sophomore year.Additionally, electronic correspondence, such as emails, instant messages, and texts, would be deregulated as long as they are kept private between the sender and the recipient.
Ultimately, the new recruiting rules would allow for NCAA hockey coaches and major junior teams to meet on a more level field as they vie for young recruits. Consequently, Canadian hockey players would be empowered to make more informed choices about their futures. Posted Jan. 21, 2014

Product Information

SKU: #8972640

Strap in with Nike® and hit the beach with the Sunray Protect 2.

Soft synthetic upper is flexible.

Hook-and-loop closure allows for a snug, adjustable wear.

Contrast stitching details with cutout accents.

Lightweight phylon cushioned midsole for long-lasting all-day play.

Toe bumper offers additional protection.

Non-marking molded outsole offers traction.

Imported.

Product measurements were taken using size 2 Little Kid, width M. Please note that measurements may vary by size.

In response to the high percentage of veterans involved in the criminal justice system, Veterans Courts have been forming across the nation more rapidly than any other problem-solving court. In Pennsylvania, the three branches of government have coordinated statewide assistance and programming for veterans. Pennsylvania programming for veterans includes Veterans Courts in 17 counties and several Magisterial District Court Veterans Diversion programs.
Most of the programming focuses on diverting veterans at the front end of the criminal justice system, but little to no formal programming occurs at the tail end of the criminal justice system. To more effectively reduce recidivism amongst Pennsylvania’s veteran population, counties should develop reentry programming, with a combination of in-custody and out-of-custody programming, specifically designed for incarcerated veterans.
Traditional forms of criminal punishment, like incarceration, without the use of some form of treatment, do not reduce recidivism, and at times can even increase the likelihood of recidivism. While the types and methodology of reentry programs vary greatly, they all use problem-solving principles and strategies to keep participants from reoffending. Reentry programming for the general jail population is already occurring at varying levels of intensity in most Pennsylvania counties. Creating a specifically veteran-focused reentry program would allow incarcerated veterans to utilize benefits not available to other incarcerated individuals, such as benefits provided by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) and various job and housing related resources provided by veteran service organizations. Counties can partner with the VA’s Veterans Justice Outreach (“VJO”) specialists under the VJO Program to provide VJO assessments to the veterans. This assessment is the tool used to determine which treatment services the VA can and should provide and covers areas such as medical issues, financing, housing, substance abuse, and mental health. All of these areas are common problem areas for offenders as they transition from in-custody to out-of-custody.
The focus on reentry programming in Pennsylvania would come as a timely addition to Pennsylvania’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative and the 2012 Criminal Justice Reform Act. Act 122 of 2012 established sentencing guidelines intended to provide more flexibility for prosecutors and judges to impose the most cost-effective incarceration and rehabilitation options. The partner act, Act 196 of 2012, reinvests the savings generated from Act 122 to establish programs designed to properly prepare inmates for reintroduction to the community.

Please join us in congratulating the following Penn State Law students who were chosen as Resident Forum Bloggers. Each student will blog on a specific area of the law once a month for the next five months.